Anyone here have any personal experience with confronting Ebay scammers?

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you refund someone does ebay remove their ability to leave you feedback on the item? I figure they are still going to give you a negative because why not. They didn't get their way.

 

As Bird correctly points out, no. Once a sale is recorded even in the event of a refund, feedback is an ongoing option for the buyer. The seller can of course only leave "positive" feedback (but your text can say negative things if that was your experience).

 

 

Leaving a "negative" positive is, or was, against eBay's policies. I can't find it in their convoluted mess now, but it used to be against the rules.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you refund someone does ebay remove their ability to leave you feedback on the item? I figure they are still going to give you a negative because why not. They didn't get their way.

 

As Bird correctly points out, no. Once a sale is recorded even in the event of a refund, feedback is an ongoing option for the buyer. The seller can of course only leave "positive" feedback (but your text can say negative things if that was your experience).

 

 

I think removing the negative feedback option for sellers was some of the dumbest mess eBay has ever done. Yeah its great you can file a non-payment report and potentially get a "strike" on someone, but no one else sees that. Positive feedback percentage is the easiest first glance metric to help you get an idea who you're dealing with. If buyers can do it, sellers should be able to as well. What's fair is fair. Not that eBay cares about one peon's opinion of course...

 

 

It was a very good move, and a positive step in the "Amazon model" direction.

 

Think about it: what good is negative feedback for a buyer? What value is feedback at all for any buyer, past a certain "non-newb" threshold?

 

The ability to leave neutral/negative feedback for a buyer was pointless, because it didn't stop buyers from being able to buy. Oh, sure, sometimes sellers got wind of a buyer through their feedback, but 99.99945% of the time, buyers won auctions and "bought it now" without anyone looking at their feedback for a second. Having a "bad feedback score" meant nothing: a buyer could easily bid at the last second (snipe), and there's nothing a seller could do about it beforehand.

 

And, if a buyer happened to accumulate a bunch of negatives, there was nothing stopping them from starting over, because, again, it didn't matter.

 

The only thing being able to leave neutral/negative feedback for buyers accomplished was a sense of vengeance for sellers which is, of course, silly.

 

AND...as eBay rightfully points out, buyers were far more reluctant to leave negative feedback for sellers who deserved it...and in comics, that was at least half of them on any given day...because of the threat of retaliation, which was very, very real.

 

So, you bought a book that was advertised as "MINT CONDITION!!!" that arrived looking like it had been used as a dinner mat, and mailed in a manila envelope, sans bag and board, folded in half, and all you did wrong was pay the seller...but you BOTH ended up with negative feedback? How's that fair, again?

 

And, of course, because people were afraid to say something bad about someone, because they were afraid of someone saying something bad about them (justified or not...mostly not)...and also because most people didn't care too much about condition in the first place...these sellers got away with it, and nothing changed, and if you dared leave honest feedback, YOU were perceived to be "the problem", and someone who "couldn't be pleased."

 

It was enough to make you want to pull your hair out in frustration.

 

Interestingly enough, I've never left a single negative feedback for a seller because of the condition of a CGC slabbed book, and I think I've left A negative feedback for a coin seller who didn't disclose that his coins were cleaned, and that with hundreds, if not thousands, of purchases in those categories, too.

 

So, no, it's a very, very good thing that eBay finally got rid of the ability for sellers to leave non-positive feedback. It was a long time in coming.

 

 

[mattn792]

If you refund someone does ebay remove their ability to leave you feedback on the item? I figure they are still going to give you a negative because why not. They didn't get their way.

 

As Bird correctly points out, no. Once a sale is recorded even in the event of a refund, feedback is an ongoing option for the buyer. The seller can of course only leave "positive" feedback (but your text can say negative things if that was your experience).

 

 

I think removing the negative feedback option for sellers was some of the dumbest mess eBay has ever done. Yeah its great you can file a non-payment report and potentially get a "strike" on someone, but no one else sees that. Positive feedback percentage is the easiest first glance metric to help you get an idea who you're dealing with. If buyers can do it, sellers should be able to as well. What's fair is fair. Not that eBay cares about one peon's opinion of course...

 

 

It was a very good move, and a positive step in the "Amazon model" direction.

 

Think about it: what good is negative feedback for a buyer? What value is feedback at all for any buyer, past a certain "non-newb" threshold?

 

The ability to leave neutral/negative feedback for a buyer was pointless, because it didn't stop buyers from being able to buy. Oh, sure, sometimes sellers got wind of a buyer through their feedback, but 99.99945% of the time, buyers won auctions and "bought it now" without anyone looking at their feedback for a second. Having a "bad feedback score" meant nothing: a buyer could easily bid at the last second (snipe), and there's nothing a seller could do about it beforehand.

 

And, if a buyer happened to accumulate a bunch of negatives, there was nothing stopping them from starting over, because, again, it didn't matter.

 

The only thing being able to leave neutral/negative feedback for buyers accomplished was a sense of vengeance for sellers which is, of course, silly.

 

AND...as eBay rightfully points out, buyers were far more reluctant to leave negative feedback for sellers who deserved it...and in comics, that was at least half of them on any given day...because of the threat of retaliation, which was very, very real.

 

So, you bought a book that was advertised as "MINT CONDITION!!!" that arrived looking like it had been used as a dinner mat, and mailed in a manila envelope, sans bag and board, folded in half, and all you did wrong was pay the seller...but you BOTH ended up with negative feedback? How's that fair, again?

 

And, of course, because people were afraid to say something bad about someone, because they were afraid of someone saying something bad about them (justified or not...mostly not)...and also because most people didn't care too much about condition in the first place...these sellers got away with it, and nothing changed, and if you dared leave honest feedback, YOU were perceived to be "the problem", and someone who "couldn't be pleased."

 

It was enough to make you want to pull your hair out in frustration.

 

Interestingly enough, I've never left a single negative feedback for a seller because of the condition of a CGC slabbed book, and I think I've left A negative feedback for a coin seller who didn't disclose that his coins were cleaned, and that with hundreds, if not thousands, of purchases in those categories, too.

 

So, no, it's a very, very good thing that eBay finally got rid of the ability for sellers to leave non-positive feedback. It was a long time in coming.

 

 

Good counterpoints, I can dig it. But, the main problem I have is that the feedback system is still a one sided coin in some ways. The change may have helped reduce the "revenge feedback" to some extent, but at the same time it made the feedback system inequitable. For example, I had a guy get all uppity because the post office cracked the case of his (insured) CGC book, yet I was still polite enough to accept his return and deal with the insurance claim myself even though I didn't have to. While he didn't take the a-hole route, there was still nothing to stop him from putting on the CAPS LOCK and calling me an incompetent bleepity bleep shipper or whatever. My only recourse would've been to post a reply.

 

Which leads right into your mention of the Amazon model -- absolutely the way they should go. Nix positive and negative, do away with the feedback character limit, and let the folks rant and/or rave to their heart's content. eBay already has a 1-5 star system in place for rating sellers, don't see why they can't build off that.

[OldGuy]

[GeneticNinja]

Personally no. Confronting a stranger would probably end up in violence. And sadly eBay actually protects buyers who scam or at least know the rules so they can scam sellers. So my days of selling on eBay stopped.

 

I do know of a few confrontations in business deals that happened. One time a guy actually few in from out of state to see the guy that ripped him off. He actually told him on the phone that he was going to fly in just to see the face of the person that did it. And that's what happened. One day he knocked on the door. Asked to see the person that ripped him off. Said I told you I wanted to see you. And then walked out. Of course this was before you could find pictures and locations of people on the Internet. But part of me finds that kind of scary. A guy flying in from out of state just to look at a person.

 

There were a few more events like that in the business I was in as we had people who were rude and also dealing with people who were having bad days. People swearing at customers and customers at times swearing back was almost common place.

[KPR Comics]

Some buyers are also sellers, so the negs would affect them, no?

[Jimmy Linguini]

This is a good video I guess.

 

Guy buys a engine on ebay - gets paypal to reverse the charges but keeps engine.

 

Guys go to his house to get engine back.

 

 

(Skip past the intro)

[Kenners]

Excellent!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Some buyers are also sellers, so the negs would affect them, no?

 

 

Sure, but why would it? eBay has allowed separate buying and selling accounts for years, perhaps back to the 90's, for this very reason, among others. It's not very wise to conduct buying and selling activities, on a regular basis, under the same account.

 

No seller is going to sell on an account that has received negative feedback as a buyer (and really the only sellers who don't care about negative feedback are the really big volume sellers, and those accounts are certainly not used for buying.) If they DID use the same account for both, they very quickly made a separate selling account as soon as they received negative feedback as a buyer (because, of course, that's not a reflection of them as a seller, but their buyers aren't necessarily going to take the time to research that.)

 

That some buyers are also sellers, then, isn't an effective argument to keep negs for buyers, for the reasons above.

 

As an aside, the argument can be made for not getting ANY feedback as a buyer, because it serves no functional purpose...it's a remnant of eBay's absurd and childish "I'm ok, you're ok, let's tell each other so!" corporate philosophy.

 

Still, "bad" feedback for buyers has always been a non-starter, but it took many years for the incompetents at eBay to figure that out.

 

[Buzzetta]

This is a good video I guess.

 

Guy buys a engine on ebay - gets paypal to reverse the charges but keeps engine.

 

Guys go to his house to get engine back.

 

 

(Skip past the intro)

 

Phenomenal

[KPR Comics]

Perhaps if eBay prohibited multiple accounts or linked the feedback across multiple accounts, the negatives would serve to:

1. Provide vengeance/justice for the offended seller

2. Deter bad behavior

3. Let the world know with whom they are dealing

 

 

[fastballspecial]

As a buyer it happened to me once around 12 years ago. Back then you still send money orders and I sent one to guy in Georgia for some SA spider-man books. It was $50 and I should have known better. After a couple of weeks and no books I call the guy. He tells me he will ship this week going thru a divorce and the whole 9 yards. Another week goes by nothing.

 

I call my local police and they laugh at me and suggest calling down there in GA. So I do I get ahold of a judge in this small town and chat it up. He calls it "Theft by Deception" and has me call the local county sheriff. I talk with them for awhile and they have me fax all the details to them. They call me back and tell me they are paying him a visit tomorrow. I get home from work and there is a very nervous message on my answer machine. I get my money + shipping returned in 2 days. Apparently the scared the hell out of him. I sent them quite a few snacks for Christmas that year.

 

As seller my issues involving trying to switch books on me. 1 I was able to catch and prove one and the other guy has more screws loose then I thought possible got away with it.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Perhaps if eBay prohibited multiple accounts or linked the feedback across multiple accounts, the negatives would serve to:

1. Provide vengeance/justice for the offended seller

2. Deter bad behavior

3. Let the world know with whom they are dealing

 

 

 

That is not a valid idea, for all the reasons listed above, plus many more. You're talking about someone's opinion in 80 characters; how can you possibly "let the world know with whom they are dealing" like that?

 

Buyers tend to look at feedback scores; very, very few take the time to research. It's improved a lot since eBay instituted the 12 month rolling feedback score, but people still come to unwarranted conclusions. How can one say "oh, well, clearly the seller was at fault here" or "the buyer was at fault there" over 80 characters?

 

You can't. No one can.

 

And what is "bad behavior"? Who gets to judge that? Is disagreeing with someone "bad behavior"? Is calling someone out for making provably inaccurate statements "bad behavior"? Is calling someone out for clear fraud "bad behavior"? Is complaining about being called out "bad behavior"?

 

Does the seller have a right to be offended? Says who?

 

Detering bad behavior is accomplished by holding people responsible for their actions, at the time of those actions. Detering bad behavior on the part of sellers is to leave them negative feedback when they deserve it, and not having it removed by the incompetents at eBay.

 

But leaving negative feedback for a buyer for not paying? Or because hey complained and sent something back that they didn't like? Counterproductive waste of time.

 

YES, a case can be made for negative feedback for buyers who are scammers...no doubt. But, unfortunately, that's not possible in the feedback system, and needs to be addressed through other venues (like the great video that pastaroni posted above.)

 

And why should a seller be judged as a buyer? What if, as a seller, they have incredibly high standards...standards which are GREAT for their customers, but which would, as a buyer, get them into much trouble as they hold everyone else to those standards?

 

And, keep in mind that things for which users got negatives in the past...overcharging, refusing to rectify, not paying, etc etc...have long since been resolved in the giant human experiment known as eBay.

 

eBay was right: feedback for buyers was not only useless, but tended to make buyers not want to use eBay. No buyer wants to be told they're a "scam artist" or they're "hostile" or "impatient" or "cheap" or "whining" or whatever, regardless of where the truth lies, but especially when they didn't actually do anything wrong.

 

Sellers who need to seek vengeance...and I'm certainly not guiltless in that matter...have a problem, and fail in the basics of customer service. And, because buyers didn't want anyone saying bad things about them to the general public...whether they deserved it or not...they didn't leave honest feedback, and scumbag sellers...of which there were tens of thousands on eBay...got away with being scumbags for years and years and years....because no one was willing to stand up to them,

 

Look at Ewert. Look at Dupcak. Look at Ed Heaton. Look at PGX and Terrance Leder. Look at any number of infamous scams, and realize that, because people didn't want others saying bad things about them on the internet, they refused to leave negative feedback for these scammers thereby enabling them to continue perpetrating their scams on others (again, not guiltless myself in this matter, though probably less guilty than others.)

 

Buyers don't need feedback. It's pointless, and only succeeded in driving away buyers, which hurt the sellers (obviously.)

 

Here's a very long story that's sort of related, but I'll extra spoil it, to not bore those not interested:

 

 

 

 

My very first negative on eBay I got after only three weeks as a registered user...sometime in November of 1998. Almost 18 years ago, yes. Only my fourth feedback, too. It was from a guy named "davidallanhrushka1973", who was then known as "dapear."

 

This was back when anybody on eBay could leave negative feedback for anyone else on eBay, any time they wanted, for any reason they wanted. It wasn't tied to transactions.

 

I had the great misfortune of coming across "dapear's" listings, and made the mistake of bidding on one of them. Back then, there were only about 1,000 or so comic book listings at any given time, AND, sellers had full access to the e-mail addresses of the bidders, all the bidders, on their items.

 

He was selling Golden Age books, and I *think* the book I bid on was a GA Wonder Woman.

 

So, "dapear" decided he was going to become King Spam, and on all the listings of his that did NOT meet the reserve (and it was almost all of them), he would data mine the e-mails, and then send out these masterpieces of spam, detailing why his prices were so incredibly reasonable, and we were all very foolish to not pay his prices, and he'd include charts in them, showing how they'd appreciated over the years, and (yes, I kid you not), chastising everyone for not taking him up on this amazing and wonderful opportunity to buy his books at such fair prices.

 

Paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs worth. I wish I'd saved them. Maybe I printed them out somewhere. Something like 5-7 printed pages in the e-mail, with OPG prices, auction results, dealer website prices, etc etc.

 

(Yes, looking back, his prices WERE probably good buys, eventually, but this was 1998, these were auctions, CGC didn't exist, and he was asking, clearly, much more than they were worth on eBay.

 

And, being able to buy GA books, without having to pay full NM OPG for VG+ copies, was a THRILLING revelation. It's hard to describe how the world just opened up on eBay. It was an amazing time to be a buyer of comics.)

 

So, after I got several of these e-mails over the course of a couple of weeks, I wrote the guy and told him to knock it off, that his prices obviously weren't that great of a deal, and he was spamming people (yes, "spam" was used for e-mail abuse even back then.)

 

So, he promptly told me to eff off, and left me my first negative.

 

I...being so foolish, young, and naïve, trusted the good people at eBay when they said they "believed people were basically good", and that, certainly, this nonsense wouldn't stand.

 

Oops.

 

I didn't retaliate, and to this day, that negative exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sandflea]

This is a good video I guess.

 

Guy buys a engine on ebay - gets paypal to reverse the charges but keeps engine.

 

Guys go to his house to get engine back.

 

 

(Skip past the intro)

 

 

It's great to read or hear about scam victims reacquiring their property/money from chump-@$$ scammers, but to see the recovery in action is priceless...

 

Thanks for sharing

[GeneticNinja]

Some buyers are also sellers, so the negs would affect them, no?

 

I think small time sellers are like that. It is what I used to do.

 

This is a good video I guess.

 

Guy buys a engine on ebay - gets paypal to reverse the charges but keeps engine.

 

Guys go to his house to get engine back.

 

 

(Skip past the intro)

 

Something like this could quickly escalate into the OJ situation just by that thief's behavior. I hate people who steal and lie then run to the police to protect them.

 

Some buyers are also sellers, so the negs would affect them, no?

 

 

Sure, but why would it? eBay has allowed separate buying and selling accounts for years, perhaps back to the 90's, for this very reason, among others. It's not very wise to conduct buying and selling activities, on a regular basis, under the same account.

 

No seller is going to sell on an account that has received negative feedback as a buyer (and really the only sellers who don't care about negative feedback are the really big volume sellers, and those accounts are certainly not used for buying.) If they DID use the same account for both, they very quickly made a separate selling account as soon as they received negative feedback as a buyer (because, of course, that's not a reflection of them as a seller, but their buyers aren't necessarily going to take the time to research that.)

 

That some buyers are also sellers, then, isn't an effective argument to keep negs for buyers, for the reasons above.

 

As an aside, the argument can be made for not getting ANY feedback as a buyer, because it serves no functional purpose...it's a remnant of eBay's absurd and childish "I'm ok, you're ok, let's tell each other so!" corporate philosophy.

 

Still, "bad" feedback for buyers has always been a non-starter, but it took many years for the incompetents at eBay to figure that out.

 

Without bad feedback for buyers, there is no way for sellers to know who they are dealing with. That's my problem with ebay's new system. If a buyer attempted a scam a seller will never know unless a previous seller reported it and ebay decided to cancel or ban them for a while.

 

I get that ebay wants people to buy. And I read your examples. But still a system that gives all the benefit to buyers and allows them to scam if they know how, isn't a good system. Without feedback on both sides the system is broken. Perhaps the negative buyer feedback should have a link to the actual cases so potential sellers can read it if interested. To me, you just can't allow scams, perhaps on both sides to go on. And somehow I doubt there were more sellers who scammed over buyers. At least not compared to what's going on today.

[Gatchaman]

 

As seller my issues involving trying to switch books on me. 1 I was able to catch and prove one and the other guy has more screws loose then I thought possible got away with it.

 

 

Yeah, I had a Batman #1 (New 52) and a Nyx #3 that I believed the buyers were trying to switch the books on me, but nobody would believe me that that could happen.

[Chaseman210]

I always try look at toolhaus.org before selling a book to someone on eBay. It doesn't show you any negative feedback for buyers, but it can give you an idea of what type of buyer you're dealing with based on the frequency of negatives for other sellers they have bought from.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Some buyers are also sellers, so the negs would affect them, no?

 

 

Sure, but why would it? eBay has allowed separate buying and selling accounts for years, perhaps back to the 90's, for this very reason, among others. It's not very wise to conduct buying and selling activities, on a regular basis, under the same account.

 

No seller is going to sell on an account that has received negative feedback as a buyer (and really the only sellers who don't care about negative feedback are the really big volume sellers, and those accounts are certainly not used for buying.) If they DID use the same account for both, they very quickly made a separate selling account as soon as they received negative feedback as a buyer (because, of course, that's not a reflection of them as a seller, but their buyers aren't necessarily going to take the time to research that.)

 

That some buyers are also sellers, then, isn't an effective argument to keep negs for buyers, for the reasons above.

 

As an aside, the argument can be made for not getting ANY feedback as a buyer, because it serves no functional purpose...it's a remnant of eBay's absurd and childish "I'm ok, you're ok, let's tell each other so!" corporate philosophy.

 

Still, "bad" feedback for buyers has always been a non-starter, but it took many years for the incompetents at eBay to figure that out.

 

Without bad feedback for buyers, there is no way for sellers to know who they are dealing with.

 

 

WITH "bad feedback for buyers", there is no way for sellers to know whom they are dealing with.

 

And why does a seller need to know whom they're dealing with?

 

In the real world, do retailers know who they are dealing with? Do potential customers walk in the front door with a copy of feedback from other transactions at other establishments, which the retailer demands before being willing to do business?

 

No, of course not. It's not necessary for sellers to know whom they're dealing with, as much as some sellers would like that to be the case.

 

And, in most cases, they can't. If a "bidder the seller doesn't want to do business with" bids on an item in the last second, or just outright buys it, how is the seller supposed to know whom they're dealing with?

 

They can't.

 

And the beyond ridiculous "I want to warn other sellers about this bad buyer!" is a completely hollow claim. These people want VENGEANCE, they don't care about other sellers. Oh, sure, they may give lip service to wanting to "warn others", but they don't really care, because they don't have to care. It's all about the mental high one gets from administering what they feel is much deserved "take THAT!" style "justice."

 

And for those who doubt, look at the tone of most negative feedback left for buyers in the past. Is it calm, rational, reasonable? Or is it angry, spiteful, and clearly left in retaliation?

 

How much negative feedback for buyers was left because the seller genuinely believes that the buyer is acting in bad faith? 1%? Less than 1%?

 

How much negative feedback for buyers was left totally in retaliation, solely because the seller was angry that the buyer "sullied" their reputation? Nearly all of it.

 

How many sellers said "yeah, ok, I guess the buyer is right, and I really screwed the pooch on that one. I deserved it" and then didn't leave negative feedback in reply, or more, left POSITIVE feedback for the buyer for helping them improve?

 

That's laughably absurd.

 

Can you imagine if Walmart (or any retailer) treated customers like eBay sellers have treated customers? You return something because it's faulty, and the customer service person says "how do I know you didn't switch this with another one?" or "that's not our problem; take it up with the manufacturer", or "I see that you returned something last year to Target, you're clearly someone who can't be satisfied", or "it was in perfect condition when I rang it up, you must have done something to it yourself"...?

 

And THEN have Walmart post that negative feedback on your Facebook page, for all to see...?

 

They'd be marched right out of business, and rightfully so.

 

 

 

That's my problem with ebay's new system. If a buyer attempted a scam a seller will never know unless a previous seller reported it and ebay decided to cancel or ban them for a while.

 

 

But according to whom? Who do you believe? I've had sellers accuse me of trying to "attempt a scam" on them for nothing more than calling them on their overgrading. I've got negative feedback on buying accounts from years past that no one on this board would think was justified, but there it remains.

 

Hell, there are people HERE who have accused me of outright fraud in the past (behind closed doors, of course) because they didn't understand what I said, and could not be bothered one whit to find out. They made their judgments based on appearance, without doing a bit of investigation, and arrived at their conclusions because they didn't like me, personally, not on any merit their accusations really had.

 

Of course, they wouldn't dare put their public faces to those accusations, because then the investigation WOULD happen, but that's the way it is. So how can anyone judge from such a small piece of information, when people misjudge on large gobs of it?

 

And, people can, and have, gotten negative feedback removed for completely illegitimate reasons.

 

So how does one possibly judge, based on an instance of negative feedback, where someone is really coming from?

 

"But there's a pattern!" some may suggest. Yes, patterns aren't without merit, but again...say there's a buyer, like me, who is vocal about problems, problems for which CGC's very existence manifestly proves, but those sellers seek vengeance for someone who "dared" tell the truth about them?

 

Are you aware, for instance, that people were MORE likely to leave negative feedback for another person, buyer or seller, if they saw OTHERS doing it?

 

And new? Sellers haven't been able to leave negative feedback for buyers since 2008. That's quite a bit of time, now.

 

 

I get that ebay wants people to buy. And I read your examples. But still a system that gives all the benefit to buyers and allows them to scam if they know how, isn't a good system. Without feedback on both sides the system is broken. Perhaps the negative buyer feedback should have a link to the actual cases so potential sellers can read it if interested. To me, you just can't allow scams, perhaps on both sides to go on. And somehow I doubt there were more sellers who scammed over buyers. At least not compared to what's going on today.

 

 

That would be quite incorrect. The number of "scam buyers" pales in comparison to the fraud, both soft AND hard, perpetrated by sellers over the years. And I say this as a seller for nearly 18 years. Yes, there are a lot of buyers out there trying scams. But the number of sellers, especially in a condition sensitive hobby like comics, committing soft fraud (loose grading, garbage packaging, S&H gouging, missed resto, etc.) and hard fraud (known resto not mentioned, known missing pages not mentioned, wild overgrading, bait and switch, etc.) outnumbers bad buyers by orders of magnitude.

 

It's really not even close, which is why eBay has swung so far over to protecting buyers in recent years. Incompetent as they are, it's not without merit that they did so.

 

Don't get me wrong; there are, of course, bad buyers galore, and if anyone deserved negative feedback, it was them. But feedback wasn't the proper venue to demonstrate that, and there IS a difference between "buyer tried to commit a scam, and here's how" and then carefully laying out the case, with documentation, as the Youtube video posted above shows, and negative feedback left for buyers simply for complaining (regardless of the legitimacy of their complaints.)

 

Since 99%+ of negative feedback for buyers was in retaliation for negative feedback received, it was clearly not doing anyone any good and had to go.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I always try look at toolhaus.org before selling a book to someone on eBay. It doesn't show you any negative feedback for buyers, but it can give you an idea of what type of buyer you're dealing with based on the frequency of negatives for other sellers they have bought from.

 

 

I've been blocked by a small handful of people here...despite perfectly fine transactions with them in the past...because they "didn't like the feedback I left for other sellers."

 

Which is fine, because they should have that right. And yes, I'm a tough customer to please, granted (though, again, with them, there were no issues.)

 

But checking out the feedback a buyer has left for sellers is a reasonably good indicator of who you're dealing with. Does the negative feedback they leave (if any) show a calm, level-headed recitation of the facts? Or is it emotional, and laden with caps and exclamation points?

 

My big flaw is in not leaving more positive feedback for sellers when I was buying, because that tended to concentrate the negatives I did leave.

 

For example: I had a guy send me a scanner recently, and he didn't tell me (and his listing didn't indicate) that he was shipping UPS. He saw my address was a USPS PO box, and he should have been told that UPS doesn't ship to USPS PO boxes (technically. They do, if you format it correctly), and I had no idea where the scanner was, because it didn't end up at the address I gave him.

 

When I asked him where it was, he said "oh, UPS should have left you a notice" (really? UPS leaving a notice on a USPS PO box? No.) and that it was at a "shipping center" and I would have to "go pick it up."

 

When I told him it was his responsibility...and it was...to get the item to me AT the location I provided, he begged off, saying that "there's an understanding from UPS that if they can't deliver, the customer will make the effort to go pick it up."

 

Which is all fine and good, IF he'd bothered to communicate any of that upfront. He did not. So, I'm expecting a package that would have never arrived to me, had I not looked into it myself, and the seller's response was "not my problem."

 

I didn't leave negative feedback, because time ran out, but I absolutely should have.